Story Highlights
- The Court has already handed down seven decisions split along 6-3 ideological lines this term — one more than in all of last year — before reaching its most consequential remaining cases.
- The Court’s February decision invalidating Trump’s sweeping global tariffs counted three conservative and three liberal justices in the majority, a rare cross-ideological coalition.
- Among the remaining cases are potentially seismic rulings on birthright citizenship, presidential firing power, transgender athletes, and mail-in ballots — with the next opinion day set for Thursday.
What Happened
The Supreme Court hit an inauspicious milestone Tuesday as it raced to finish its most divisive pending cases by the end of the month, having already handed down more 6-3 decisions along strict ideological lines than it did for the entire term that ended last year. The Court is simultaneously navigating a charged political atmosphere and enduring sharp criticism from both the left and the right.
The Court’s most significant ruling this term came in February in the tariffs case, Learning Resources v. Trump, in which a bipartisan majority held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the power to regulate importation does not encompass the power to tax — a distinction with sweeping implications for presidential economic authority.
President Trump criticized the six justices who joined the majority after the tariffs ruling, saying they should be “absolutely ashamed.” He singled out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both of whom he appointed, and suggested he would pursue tariffs through a different legal justification.
The Court also made waves ahead of the midterm elections by ruling that a Louisiana congressional map was unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered, striking down a map that would have added a second majority-Black district. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines narrowed the Voting Rights Act precedent on race-based redistricting.
Immediately following that ruling, several states began to redraw their congressional maps, including Louisiana, Florida, and Tennessee, in moves that could materially affect control of the House of Representatives after November’s midterms.
Why It Matters
The accumulation of ideological splits is reshaping public understanding of the Court’s role in American governance. When the nation’s highest legal body divides consistently along the lines of which president appointed which justice, it undermines the Court’s historic claim to stand apart from partisan politics. That perception problem is compounding existing tensions between the judiciary and both major political parties.
More than half of the Court’s 46 decisions so far this term have been unanimous, a slightly higher share than last year. But the biggest and most complicated decisions delivered in the final days of a term are rarely unanimous, and with a dozen cases still waiting, the share of unanimous cases will likely plummet.
A professor at Antonin Scalia Law School who served in the White House during Trump’s first term noted that while the president will inevitably lose some cases, it is partly because the administration is pushing an “extremely robust vision” of presidential power — one that has required the Court to draw lines it has not drawn in decades.
For Congress, the Court’s remaining rulings carry direct legislative consequences. Decisions on whether the president can fire members of independent federal agencies, for instance, will determine the independence of bodies that oversee everything from plane crash investigations to labor disputes and consumer protection.
Economic and Global Context
The tariffs ruling has had the most direct economic impact of any Court decision this term. By invalidating Trump’s IEEPA-based tariff regime, the majority forced the administration to seek alternative legal authority for trade measures that had already begun reshaping global supply chains and raising costs for American importers and consumers.
Several of the conservative justices had already signaled a desire to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that allows Congress to insulate certain executive branch officials from presidential removal. Trump has teed them up to pull the plug, with cases involving the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies awaiting decision.
The redistricting decisions are equally consequential for the economic and policy landscape. Congressional maps that favor one party determine which lawmakers control committee chairmanships, set appropriations, and oversee regulatory agencies — making seemingly arcane line-drawing decisions among the most practically significant the Court issues.
Implications
The birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, is perhaps the most consequential pending ruling. After oral arguments in April, at least five — and perhaps as many as seven — justices appeared likely to strike down Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. A ruling against the administration would deal a significant blow to one of the president’s signature immigration priorities.
Trump himself appeared to acknowledge the prospect of defeat in the birthright citizenship case in remarks last month, saying the Court will “probably rule against me because they seem to like doing that,” and warning that “a negative ruling on birthright citizenship, on top of the recent Supreme Court tariff catastrophe, is not economically sustainable.”
The broader implication for the American constitutional order is substantial. A Court that rules against the president on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and independent agency firings in the same term will have established a meaningful set of limits on executive power — limits that will govern not just Trump’s second term, but those of future presidents from either party. How the administration responds to those limits, and whether it complies or attempts to circumvent them, may prove as consequential as the rulings themselves.
Sources
“It’s a 6-3 Supreme Court: Ideological splits mount ahead of major end-of-term rulings”
